Why should senior citizens get rebates from the government? First I pay for their social security, and now my rebate goes down so they can get a piece? If the goal is to stimulate the economy through spending, I don’t think the answer is giving 80 year olds in Florida $500. I bet they put it in the bank, or put it towards their hip-replacement fund
Hip replacements stimulate the economy…
For political reasons you cannot exclude any group especially elderly. What if studies showed that minorities were less likely to stimulate the economy with their tax rebate and therefore were denied such. Imagine the outrage. Giving out tax rebates is a mixture of politics and economics.
Shouldn’t tax rebates go to TAX PAYERS?
drs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shouldn’t tax rebates go to TAX PAYERS? You receive the lesser of a) how much tax you paid, or b) the full rebate amount. If you didn’t pay taxes, you don’t get a rebate. Drs, you’re a smart guy. But why do you have it in so much for people who are old or sick (referring to the health care discussion last week). Don’t you realize that, in all probability, you are going to be sick one day, or old, or both.
We all have our weaknesses bchadwick… I guess mine is lack of compassion/sympathy for the old folk. I predict that will gradually change as I get older, finally peaking when I reach senior citizen age and demand a Canadian like health care system.
I like to try to imagine how much of the taxes I originally paid are coming back in the form of this rebate. After all of the beurocracy and government employees the money goes through in the process of going out of my pocket, through the system, and coming back into my pocket… I shudder to think at how many cents on the dollar I will actually be getting back. Maybe half?
chad, if I’m not mistaken, a large number of non-tax payers will be getting a tax rebate. IF this is true, then it’s an outrage. It would be nothing more than re-distribution of wealth. It iss-pes (pig latin) me off even more that I work so hard and so long for such a small amount of money (think 10% of $400k, maybe 12.5% if I’m lucky), and yet the gov’t STILL takes 30 percent of everything I make. THIRTY PERCENT! For what? So that people who don’t earn it can cost my nation $50 to $100 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities.
One of the best indicator of a country’s well being is not how rich are its rich, but how poor are its poor. I work hard for my money too, and it sickens me (especially this time of the year) to see how much of that goes into taxes, but social programs have its purpose and we derive a benefit out of it. There will always be folks who will not work (by choice) or can not hold onto a job (they have pea brains). If it weren’t for these social programs, it will most likely lead to an increase in classism, petty crime and a general breakdown in law and order. Probably the biggest cause of terrorism is lack of similar programs in most of the countries. It sucks, but this is the world we live in, taxes are our way of buying some peace.
^ I have read your post three times now, and I still have no idea how it relates to the original point of the thread…
drs…it was more as an addon to Kents post than yours…
kkent, yes, it’s true that non-taxpayers could receive rebates. They must have earned over $3,000 in 2007, but they are not required to have paid tax on it to receive the rebate. Someone who earned $3K in 2007 will get $300. The maximum will be $600 per person, with an additional $300 payment per child. So, someone who makes $3K and has 2 kids could get $900.
Why the hell should they get $900 out of MY pocket that THEY didn’t earn? I give 10% of my income to charity/charitable organizations, and because I do, I can’t afford a nicer apartment or a better commute, but it’s my decision and my sacrifice. It’s outrageous that the government thinks it has the moral authority to tell me how to give my money and to whom to give it to. Let me be the arbiter of my earnings, not some schmuck from San Francisco who I didn’t even elect! This is just ridiculous to no end!
They’re not giving away our money. They pissed that away already. They’re giving away the money we’ll pay in taxes in the future. Maybe they should require a good faith agreement that these poor SOB’s will earn more in the years to come and do their part in paying down the debt .
alphabound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They’re not giving away our money. They pissed > that away already. They’re giving away the money > we’ll pay in taxes in the future. amen
bchadwick, Once could argue that a disproportionate amount of resources are used to make the old people live maybe 10 more years and that it would be a much more efficient use of resources to spend that money on other things like education or r&d for alternative energy or to make farts not smell. Look at how much money we’re spending on Medicare for people who are going to die in a few years anyway. Of course my point of view will change when I get older and it will become much less logical and more emotional, however, on a strict efficiency view, we should let old people die. As an added benefit we won’t have to waste other resources on them like food and energy. We will be able to drive on the left lane of a road without slamming on the brakes. The only downside will be the loss of jobs in the prune industry.
'Cause I’m Immanuel Kant, yes I’m the real Kant All you other Immanuel Kants are just imitating So won’t the real Immanuel Kant please stand up, please stand up, please stand up?
“Why the hell should they get $900 out of MY pocket that THEY didn’t earn?” the answer directly from Bernanke is: “To be useful, a fiscal stimulus package should be implemented quickly and structured so that its effects on aggregate spending are felt as much as possible within the next 12 months or so,” In order for aggregate spending to be felt as much as possible, you need to give the rebate to the people who are going to spend it (i.e. increase aggregate demand), i.e. the people who live at the margin, pay check to pay check. Giving the money back to people who will end up saving it will not increase aggregate demand. You might not think its fair, but its actually sound economic policy (before the dems/republicans go f*$k it up with extra provisions)
Maybe the government should have given me (as a taxpayer) one of two options (1) take the original $800 (in the form of a use or lose voucher or something) and be forced to spend every penny of it or (2) give $500 of my $800 to some dropouts working at Taco Bell and I can use the remaining $300 however I see fit. Personally, I would have gone with option 1, but apparently Washington knows what’s best for me and my tax dollars.
drs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We all have our weaknesses bchadwick… I guess > mine is lack of compassion/sympathy for the old > folk. I predict that will gradually change as I > get older, finally peaking when I reach senior > citizen age and demand a Canadian like health care > system. That’s understandable. Look at how many college students find themselves becoming fiscally conservative when they actually start earning money.